Police officers should be bound by the same laws as everyone else, so this is a good move.

"A gun law?!?! Aw hayell no! Any gun law means they're cummin' fer mah guhn!!

So, I call Monte Carlo patrons thugs and get my comment deleted. (Does anyone actually disagree with that?)

"What some actually think" comment stands.

As long as a group is not on the Liberal side of the fence, it is OK to mock them with assinine comments.

"Its just a dang lib'rl conspiracy!"

[Post removed due to disrespectful comment or personal attack]

Some years back, then MV police Chief Mailer attended a community meeting at the Rengsdorff Community Center. After parking his car, he put his issue police pistol and his badge in the back seat floorboard. When he returned, guess what...they had been stolen. It was downplayed and I don't remember if it was reported in the Voice, but it did happen.
I too feel that @what some others actually think, is very objectionable. The Voice has it's PC filter on.

Why are monte carlo patron thugs? Or is this your opinion? If it's your opinion, don't bother replying.

I was selected for jury duty in Santa Clara County Superior Court on a case where some crazed idiot was arrested for carrying a loaded 9mm automatic hidden under the front seat and in a holster in his car. This was in clear violation of CA law, which stated that handguns in autos must be stored, unarmed, in lock boxes and ammunition in a second lock box.

It was an open and shut case, but the NRA idiot insisted on a trial claiming that his Constitutional rights had been violated. We convicted him in 30 minutes. Idiot!

It is shocking to know that cops are also idiots who are held to a different standard. Maybe it's not so shockin if you have ever associated with bully boy cops. When parking their vehicles, cops must be held to the same standards as the rest of us; unloaded weapons in lock boxes, and ammunition in separately located lock boxes.

You're wrong about the ammo. You don't have to store it separately; in fact you can store a loaded magazine along with your firearm so long as it is not inserted into the magazine well. Many people spread FUD about separate locked container but it is simply not true. It's even posted on the CA CHP website in FAQ. FYI.

Thank you for convicting that fool based on the laws of our country.

-Your Fellow Good American

@StowWeaponsSafely
"a resident of Cuesta Parkon Jan 14, 2016 at 7:31 pm
jury duty in Santa Clara County Superior Court on a case where some crazed idiot was arrested for carrying a loaded 9mm automatic hidden under the front seat and in a holster in his car."

I was called for jury duty about 10 years ago in Santa Clara County. The only charge was cocaine possession with intent to distribute. Quantity was just what the guy had in his pants pocket. Jury pool was about 120 people.

We got a sheet of questions to read, like are you a cop or lawyer or do you recognize any of the people involved in the case or such. Anyone who answered any of those "yes" got specific questions on that point. Some got dismissed for cause.

The judge then verbally asked all the potential jurors in the courtroom if anyone had any sort of connection with guns, or gun related groups or got any gun related magazines or if anyone had a gun in their homes.

More than half of the potential jurors raised their hands at that point. The first 30 of us, including me, got targeted for more questions if we had our hands raised. When asked his connection with firearms, the guy in front of me loudly proclaimed he was an active member of a well-known gun-ban group. He was kept on the jury and not asked even one more question.

When I was asked if there was a gun in my house, I said "yes" and got a stream of intrusive questions, none of which related to drugs or anyone involved with the trial.

At one point a woman raised her hand the judge called on her she asked "Your honor, I am confused, I would never allow a gun in my home, but I thought guns were legal in this state. Why are all these people being asked about guns?".

The judge paused and stammered a bit then said "We don't ban guns in California." Which was ironic and didn't answer her question. And then the judge allowed the lawyers to continue the questioning.

The lawyers found nothing of cause to dismiss me, so the defense lawyer used one of his preemptory challenges to "excuse" me from the jury pool.

That is basically how things went, other than the gun-ban-guy, nobody with any connection with firearms was allowed on the jury. And they also dismissed the woman who asked why these gun questions were being asked.

"This was in clear violation of CA law, which stated that handguns in autos must be stored, unarmed, in lock boxes and ammunition in a second lock box."

Check Calif gov web-site. As long as the ammo is not "attached" to the gun or a magazine, you're fine to use one locked box.

"It was an open and shut case, but the NRA idiot insisted on a trial claiming that his Constitutional rights had been violated. We convicted him in 30 minutes. Idiot!"

Was that the only charge, just having the unsecured gun?
Why did they stop him and search the car?
Did he have a criminal record?
IF he was a criminal, then there would have been much more severe charges and he could have been sent to prison for many years for even simple gun possession.

What exactly did this guy say or do to make you claim he was "crazed"?

His Constitutional rights were violated, but he was also in violation of Calif laws. Calif laws and Federal laws and the Constitution are often in conflict. It's why we have a Supreme Court.

The Calif laws on POT violate Federal laws. The Calif laws on same-sex marriage were in violation of the Constitution. For 2 examples.

"It is shocking to know that cops are also idiots who are held to a different standard."

Not really.